Alrighty!

So, for a change in topic here... what do you think of the middle easst. Is the coming of the Lord at hand... or is just another bunch of dark skins shooting off at the mouth?

Does Israel stand a chance... who is going to strike first... will the United States bomb Iraq in full force first, or will they wait until Saddam makes the first move... (in a major way that is).

It sure is interesting times...

Well Mr./Ms. Admin,

You certainly are active today on the boards.:cool: anyway...

I think that the biggest problem in the israel/palestine conflict is the duping of young muslims. They're told that they're in a "jihad" (dunno bout the spelling) and that the duties they perform for allah will ensure that they are able to enter heaven. Young people, enticed by this, strap themselves with explosives and detonate them in crowded shopping malls. This acheives nothing, other than the death of innocents. Israel has made it known that they will not back down after terrorist strikes, rather they will escalate their own agression. I think that either side, it does not matter which, should take the place of the passive activist, not fighting back against attacks.

Much like in Ghandi's protests in India, passive protests attract the media. It doesn't look good when one nation attacks aother unprovoked. Possibly this could lead to a temporary peace.

Instead of doing this, both nations continually escalate their campaigns against one another.

I'm not going to get into a disscussion of whether Israel has a right to exist, because there isn't an answer. Can anyone really say that the world would have been a better or worse place without israel? No one knows that.

On the subject of Iraq:

Kill him. Kill him now.

I'm not usually a preson who like having military operations all over the place. But this is one thing that I can say that i'm 100% behind. This man rules with an iron fist over a people that live in a state slightly below poverty. He runs an incredible propaganda machine, and an even more impressive military machine. He's even stooped as low as to buy playstations for military hardware applications.

Check that. Instead, take him alive, bring him to the hague, just like they did with milosevic. Thats the kind of thing that shows leaders that they can no longer rule however they wish. The world would be watching them, and their every move. To create this type of insecurity in bad guys might lead them to be a little bit more moderate.

Iraq will make the first major move. I dont think the US could rally enough support to attack Iraq heavily. Desert Storm is fading into the past. We need to make sure that saddam doesn't get a clean slate.

Originally posted by Matrix Agent
I think that the biggest problem in the israel/palestine conflict is the duping of young muslims.

I think the biggest problem in the Israel/Palestine conflict is the role of the U.S. in the Middle East (favoring Israel over other Middle-Eastern nations, supporting Israeli army, supporting Israeli weapon industry, caring more about its own interests than establishing peace...)



Much like in Ghandi's protests in India, passive protests attract the media. It doesn't look good when one nation attacks aother unprovoked.


The difference here is: the Palestinians have been waiting for an independent state for the last 50 years. During those 50 years Israel has proven to be a brutal colonial force. Maybe they don't want to wait another 150 years for their independence.

Don't forget that western media has always portrayed (and still portrays) Muslims negatively (perhaps because we are unfamiliar with their culture and religion), Jews positively (perhaps because the West feels guilt for not opposing to Hitler until it was way too late, and because Jewish people are a strong economic force in the U.S. and the West in general).

IMO a passive palestinian protest would remain relatively unnoticed and ineffective in the current political climate.



On the subject of Iraq:
Kill him. Kill him now.


On the subject of Iraq:
The last thing we need is another U.S. intervention. Who the hell gave them the right to act as the world's police officer?

The U.S. isn't exactly known for supporting human rights and respecting democracy...

But it would be interesting to see what lies they would come up with to justify bombing Iraq for a third time (cfr. 1991 lies about babies being killed in Quwait by Iraqi soldiers).

---

This conflict is extremely complicated, and the last thing we need is the American "support" for the peace process. The only way to reach peace will be to have the moderate people on both sides step up to the extremists (on both sides). The U.S. will also have to stop interfering in international politics -- and that won't happen anytime soon I'm afraid. I don't have much hope for the future.

On the subject of the Israeli state...
No one had a right to create it. The ancestors of the people that live there now were brought back to create the israeli state, but that land already belonged to someone.

If they have the right to exist then don't other countries reserve the right to get back land that they lost during migration and war times?

The fact of the matter is that the israeli state does exist, and they have to solve their problems by themselves. No outside internvention. The only outside intervention should be as bouncers to keep the fighting in the ring and not to let it escalate outside the area of the fight.

As for sadddam, I am anti hague for one reason. Who the heck gives them the right? The answer is whichever country signed the charter. Countries that have NOT signed the charter should not be held liable to give over so called war criminals. If milosevic and saddam go to the hague, then people like the israeli sheron and clinton should go there as well. People commit so called war crimes all the time, but depending on political alliances and internal political games people evade the hague, and this also has to do how the media, western and international portray our so called leaders.



Admiral

Who should police the world? or should there not be any form of centralized gov't?

I'm for the UN, almost all countries belong to it. The ability for all nations to speak out provides the world with a more moderate view than any one country could come up with on its own.

Was anyone here against desert storm?

Originally posted by AdmiralAK
On the subject of the Israeli state...
No one had a right to create it. The ancestors of the people that live there now were brought back to create the israeli state, but that land already belonged to someone.

True: the Israeli state was created by the West. Before going with the current location, the British and the other winners of WWII considered West-Africa and South-America as possible locations for an Israeli state.

Palestine, at that time the home of the Palestinians was handed over from one colonial power (the British) to another (Israel).

As many Jews as possible where convinced by the Zionist movement (their leader was Ben Gurion I believe, he also was first Israeli president) to go live in the newly created state. The "Israeli Defence Force" wiped out the Palestinian presence in the area they controlled, giving all Palestinian houses to newly immigrated
Jews - and establishing new colonies to expand the Israeli territory.


No outside internvention.

Amen.


People commit so called war crimes all the time, but depending on political alliances and internal political games people evade the hague, and this also has to do how the media, western and international portray our so called leaders.

The USA (and European countries) have supported (and still support) several undemocratic regimes (e.g. Sadam Housein during the 80s). Where do these Western countries then get the right to create an international court of justice to condemn the undemocratic regimes that hadn't the luck of being supported by the West?

Originally posted by Matrix Agent
Who should police the world? or should there not be any form of centralized gov't?

In an ideal world, all nations would get along fine, politicians would only be politicians because they want the best for the world and the people.

In the real world, there are lots of international conflicts, there are coalitions of nations trying to secure their interests, you've got the usa who are way too powerful (there's no opposition), politicians who protect the interests of transnational corporations, and so on...

Because of all the above, I'm not pro globalization. (There are lots of other difficulties with centralized government: how to protect and respect the cultural differences, the rights of minorities...)

I live in Belgium, and we have a supra-national government: the European Union. The EU isn't a democratic institution at all, mostly because of practical reaons - and their are only 15 member states - what with 200+ states?



I'm for the UN, almost all countries belong to it. The ability for all nations to speak out provides the world with a more moderate view than any one country could come up with on its own.

It's not because all nations have the ability to speak out that they get listened to... their are a couple of "elite nations" in the Security Council, and they can veto whatever resolution they want...

The USA always vetoed UN-measures against Israel for exmple...


Was anyone here against desert storm?

I am. And about everyone in Europe who follows international politics, except for some politicians maybe, are too.

The US is powerful, but lately, (and this is an american saying this) i think thats its great the european nations are standing up and passing bills without US support. The cold war is over, western europe and the US dont have to agree on everything.

As long as were on the topic of the US:

what are everyone's sentiments torwards the US?

missle shield too?

This isn't a bad thread, much better than the "spoil OS X 10.1" thread
keep the comments coming..;)

I am a "young one" sort of (I am 20)... but I have lived in the USA and in europe. I am a US national, and live there now. I think that the missile defence plan is a waste of money. HAving that amount of firepower up there is DANGEROUS!!!

There are hackers...and there are HACKERS.... what happens is a HACKER gets control of the uplink for some reason and starts WWIII ??? OR just used our own weapons against us or agains some grudge of his or hers ???? OR are we going to have a man in the space cockpit to fore those missile when we need to ???

I think that the money for this missile defence plan would be better spent on education...you cant do anything about the dumbells of today...but you can certainly make a positive impact on the youth of tomorrow.


Admiral

Americans can be very self interested, and could very easily give many of you what you seem to think would be the best thing... the US minding it's own business. Just like we did in the early years of the last century that lead to World War I (which started over an event no larger than the events current headlines or those of ten years ago). We can be sooooo apathetic, just like we were after World War I (has every one forgotten the League of Nations, that wasn't our problem). We are even better at watching while other suffer at the hand of aggressors (we did nothing as Germany moved into one Europian country after another, maybe we should have done the same when Iraq moved into Quwait).

We could live without contact with anyone not part of the Americas, but the world wouldn't be happy with the results (but why should we even care about people an ocean away).

Admiral:"If milosevic and saddam go to the hague, then people like the israeli sheron and clinton should go there as well. People commit so called war crimes all the time, but depending on political alliances and internal political games people evade the hague, and this also has to do how the media, western and international portray our so called leaders."

As for war crimes, we should try and remember why the Hague exist. War is not the crime (though it should be), acts against humanity are what calls for this. You brought up Clinton, when did he commit anything that even looks like a war crime? And how could he? There was no action durring his terms that could have even been mistaken for a war crime. Are you saying that Milosevic and Saddam did not do the things that they did? Are you going to tell us that Hitler was misrepresented in the press? Where does it stop? Japan is already rewriting history to cover up what they did in World War II. You don't like what you read so you pretend it didn't happen?

People, we all need to look beyond our selves. We all need to look back at what has already happened. We are the ones who make the choices, and if the sentiments displayed here are what we can look forward to in the future, then we can expect more of what we had in the past... only much worse.

HItler got what was coming to him ;)
As far as re-writing history, that is a BIG no no! Furthermore...history ...or any story, takes a different twist depending on who tells it (or who wirtes the textbook for that matter), so a person who is nterested in historical truths will look at realiable sources and examine materials by several reliable historical authors (Strangelly enough I learned this in biology class).


As far as our x-pres goes. We are THE most technologically advanced nation on the planet? Am I right or am I right? (lol a little national pride here :p) ... if that is the case... how the heck is it possible for us to be bombing targets like hospitals, media centers (tv/radio stations) and other civilian targets when under some sort of "war code of honor" we are supposed to take out only military targets ? Furthermore...remember the chinese embassy ? IT was bombed...boy was that a PR nightmare! IT is INNEXCUSABLE to have this very advanced technology and make such huge blunders. Granted the military executed these actions but clinton, as the pres back then, was the man in charge, he sent troops in there, and technically he is the "supervisor" in that whole situation... I cant fathom that these are tech mistakes because we wouldnt be considering paying the same guys to make a missile defense plan for us....I can just imagine it now "ph it was a software glitch and littletown, MI was whipped out" ... so if it wasnt a glitch (or glitches) those targets were pre-approved and taken out, in which case it is a crime because unarmed civilian were in such builings...

The Hague, as an idea, is nice. but as I have said before, it applies to nations that have signed its charter...else how can it work? How can it be just? Can big nationals come in and bully small nations ? Should we take those 2 african tribes (tatouis and toutsies ?? I cant remember the names) that kill one another and take em to court ?:confused:

As far as intervening...sometimes situations merit intervention, but again it's a matter or timing and circumstance. I think that countries have a soveregn right to do what they want within their borders (something that doesnt effect other countries...like for example if the polute, they cant do that since it effects their neighbors )
Although I don't condonne the loss of human life, imagine a situation like this:

some group/race/political affiliation wants to take a state (from the USA) and make a country out of it. Of course the supreme court (AFAIK) doesnt allow any state to break from the union. Lets say ALL (or 85%) of the citizens of that state want to break away, but since they are not allowed they take up arms. Lets say good ol gerge bush sends in the guard, the police, the FBI, the army and the whatevers and tehre is some sort of massacre, a big battle(s), and there was some sort of -cide (be it genocide, political party affliation-ocide, etc etc etc) ... do you think that ANY country in the world is going to object ???? Or even if they do will something come of it ???

I am reminded of the days of the black movement with all the freedom rides and so on. When blacks were treated as subhumans, they were beaten and so on. WORLD newspapers in italy, france, germany, greece, the UK and so on covered these conditions and treatments of the black people....and what did a whitty senator (or was it congressman ?) say? "I will worry about international opinion when we stop giving them money"... This makes my blood boil! How the f*ck do some people think that they are above certain standards ??? IF you are going to go meddle in the internal affairs of one country you have to be open for other countries to do the same to your country.

Oh well... it's too early for this. let me finish my coffee and I will be back :)


Admiral

PS: This promises to be another intellectual "religion-thread-type" he he lets keep it up :)

Matrix Agent: It _is_ a good thing that Europe is now able to make decisions on its own, but I think it would be even better to have a few other strong (non-western) coalitions of nations (Africa, Asia, Latin America), all having about the same power and influence.

Sentiments towards US: I also qualify as a "young one": 18 y/o. I spent 10 days in the USA last April (NY, Washington DC, Philadeplphia). What I like about the USA: a certain segment of the population (there are lots of interesting people living in the US), the fact that almost everything is possible in the US, certain cultural aspects of the US (mostly African-American culture), lots of space, lots of different cultures and people living together in one nation, nature, technology...

What I don't like: a certain segment of the population (mostly ignorant conservatives), wide-spread religious fanaticism, no social security system, hypocrisy towards sex (PARENTAL GUIDANCE: BLA BLA, MPAA ratings, beeping out "bad words" on tv, ...) while promoting guns, prisons run by private corporations, Republicans, death penalty in several states, ongoing maltreatment of minorities, media no longer report independently, politics are soap opera, politics are controlled by giant corporations, US flags in classrooms, "we are the greatest country in the world"-mentality...

RacerX: I hope you realise that the US is one of the nations most notorious for altering history?

I've seen the history programme for the typical american highschool... I have the impression US public schools provide poor, low-quality education, compared to European highschools.

I'm about to start studying History (www.rug.ac.be - Ghent University), and I promise y'all I'll try my best to write objective history...

The US have been rather mild to Japan after World War II: they got to keep their fascist Emperor, and Japan wasn't stopped when it started altering official history and teaching patriotic WWII-history to students. (strategic importance of Japan to the US...) If Germany had tried the same, the international community would've reacted in no time...

Originally posted by GrandHighOne
RacerX: I hope you realise that the US is one of the nations most notorious for altering history?

As you are someone who has little experience with the United States, I find it hard to believe that you know enough to make such a statement.


I've seen the history programme for the typical american highschool... I have the impression US public schools provide poor, low-quality education, compared to European highschools.

Again, this sound more like anti-American opinion than actual fact, I would be willing to bet money that my University has more Nobel laureats and Fields Medalists than Belgium. It must be that "low-quality education" we have out here.


I'm about to start studying History (www.rug.ac.be - Ghent University), and I promise y'all I'll try my best to write objective history...

This objective point of view, is it going to start after you are finished with your education? Why not start now? Lets look at your next statment as an example, shall we?


The US have been rather mild to Japan after World War II: they got to keep their fascist Emperor, and Japan wasn't stopped when it started altering official history and teaching patriotic WWII-history to students. (strategic importance of Japan to the US...) If Germany had tried the same, the international community would've reacted in no time...

Lets see, the US did what it could to keep the Soviets out of Japan at the end of the War after seeing how wonderful they were to work with in Germany. It was deemed at the time that leaving the Emperor in a powerless position would make recovery easier for Japan. Don't forget that the people of Japan believed that the US would rape and murder all of them (this is why pilots would fly their plane straight into US ships at the end of the war). The rewriting of World War II history is not something that is publicly know by many, so it was only when some Koreans protested that many of us found out it was happening.

As for Germany, it shall always be at the center of scrutiny after playing a central role in both World Wars. Most (west) Germans know and understand the reasons behind this. As a future (though still very young) historian, I would expect you to have an understanding of this too.

In my (low-quality) high school education, we had a course called "Reading through the Press". It was a critical reading course that ask us to read articles and try to find out what the writer wanted to tell versus what the actual events that were being written about. Key to learning history is to read (very) many sources and understand the perspective of each. By reading you posts, I can tell you have no experience in doing this. I guess this is a falure of that high-quality education that you have.

Originally posted by AdmiralAK
As far as our x-pres goes. We are THE most technologically advanced nation on the planet? Am I right or am I right? (lol a little national pride here :p) ... if that is the case... how the heck is it possible for us to be bombing targets like hospitals, media centers (tv/radio stations) and other civilian targets when under some sort of "war code of honor" we are supposed to take out only military targets ? Furthermore...remember the chinese embassy ? IT was bombed...boy was that a PR nightmare! IT is INNEXCUSABLE to have this very advanced technology and make such huge blunders. Granted the military executed these actions but clinton, as the pres back then, was the man in charge, he sent troops in there, and technically he is the "supervisor" in that whole situation... I cant fathom that these are tech mistakes because we wouldnt be considering paying the same guys to make a missile defense plan for us....I can just imagine it now "ph it was a software glitch and littletown, MI was whipped out" ... so if it wasnt a glitch (or glitches) those targets were pre-approved and taken out, in which case it is a crime because unarmed civilian were in such builings...

By the same reasoning we should never have to read about our own people dying when bombed by us in training. When people are involved, mistakes happen. I don't think that the missed targets of the last 8 years should be compared to the deliberate and thought out destruction of an entire group of people. You are saying that Clinton wanted to target civilians, that is about the stupidist idea I have heard. I dislike Bush, and would never say something that far fetched about him. What reason would he have? And who would be willing to excute such orders? How do you keep that a secret? And think about who you are talking about, Clinton was the biggest bleeding-heart libral to make it to office in years. And what universe do you live in where technology works perfect ALL the time. If you are trying to start a conspiracy theory here, you'll find they work best when you can add motive to theorized actions.


The Hague, as an idea, is nice. but as I have said before, it applies to nations that have signed its charter...else how can it work? How can it be just? Can big nationals come in and bully small nations ? Should we take those 2 african tribes (tatouis and toutsies ?? I cant remember the names) that kill one another and take em to court ?

People who win and lose wars are not (and should not) be on trial. It is when people use the excuse of wars to do things are beyond discription that the Hague is need.


As far as intervening...sometimes situations merit intervention, but again it's a matter or timing and circumstance. I think that countries have a soveregn right to do what they want within their borders (something that doesnt effect other countries...like for example if the polute, they cant do that since it effects their neighbors )
Although I don't condonne the loss of human life, imagine a situation like this:

some group/race/political affiliation wants to take a state (from the USA) and make a country out of it. Of course the supreme court (AFAIK) doesnt allow any state to break from the union. Lets say ALL (or 85%) of the citizens of that state want to break away, but since they are not allowed they take up arms. Lets say good ol gerge bush sends in the guard, the police, the FBI, the army and the whatevers and tehre is some sort of massacre, a big battle(s), and there was some sort of -cide (be it genocide, political party affliation-ocide, etc etc etc) ... do you think that ANY country in the world is going to object ???? Or even if they do will something come of it ???

We have had that happen, and it was over the issue of slavery.


I am reminded of the days of the black movement with all the freedom rides and so on. When blacks were treated as subhumans, they were beaten and so on. WORLD newspapers in italy, france, germany, greece, the UK and so on covered these conditions and treatments of the black people....and what did a whitty senator (or was it congressman ?) say? "I will worry about international opinion when we stop giving them money"... This makes my blood boil! How the f*ck do some people think that they are above certain standards ??? IF you are going to go meddle in the internal affairs of one country you have to be open for other countries to do the same to your country.

Just because we won that civil war, it didn't change some poeple mind about the issues. It took almost 100 years before we started to take actual actions. Besides I thought you voted for Bush? Republicans hate civil rights (even though back in the 1860's they were the party for them).

Any one who thinks the press goes easy on our leaders missed the last 40 years. At one time the press would stay away from issues. Now everything is on the table and fair game, for better or for worse. Look at White Water, 5 years and in the end it turned out to be nothing. Our leaders are no longer privite government officals, they are public personalities who give up there rights to privacy. Not only are all their offical missteps news, so are any private ones too.


PS: This promises to be another intellectual "religion-thread-type" he he lets keep it up :)

I agree

He he ;)
I did vote for bush just because I did not like gore (Although they are both in the same boat as far as I am concerned)...if there were a white space for a write in vote I would have voted for myself lol... as indicated on some other post... politicians are political whores. Period.

On the "no one is perfect" theory.. I agree, but someone has to pay for such mistakes. If I mail a cheque out to my credit card for a payment, and the cheque gets lots because the US mail system is imperfect, and this goes on my record as having missed a payment... I am responsible for it. Someone has to be accountable, you cant just leave it like so. (maybe this is a bad example, I dont know).

As for genocide, again, it's a bad bad bad bad thing. Being of greek heritage and taking greek history classes, I know that 300 years of enslavement by the turks wasnt a day at the park for my ancestors (even tough some so called historians paint the picture as though the greeks enjoyed full rights and had a high social standing within the ottoman empire. Such historians sicken me). Anyway back to my original point. Knowing this I know that being pursecuted for your affiliation without having done anything is plain old WRONG. I can't defent milocevic for what he has done, I think it was the wrong course or action. I would have chosen another way out.

I hope that the same thing doesnt happen in FYROM because somehow the KLA (or KLA like paramilitary organizations) have such an effect.



Admiral

Originally posted by RacerX
As you are someone who has little experience with the United States, I find it hard to believe that you know enough to make such a statement.

As I live in a world where the USA is a dominant force in world politics and economics, I do have some experience with the USA (some of their bombs have been stored on a Belgian air force base for the past 20 years or so, and it wasn't until this year some government-members admitted it (no official statement yet, they aren't allowed to comment by the NATO).

I admit that I am only able to observe the US from the outside (what I see them doing), but that's the reason why I want to spent a longer period living in the US, to get to know the country & people better.


that my University has more Nobel laureats and Fields Medalists than Belgium. It must be that "low-quality education" we have out here.

I meant that the average level of education (education that most people get) is lower than the average level in most european countries. There are (percentage-wise) more poorly-educucated (is that a word?) people in the US (= and that _is_ scientific fact), and since there are so many of them, that could lead to dangerous situations (people who are not well informed are dangerous voters).

I am not stupid (although you seem to think I am). I am aware of the fact that the number 1 university of the world is an American one.

Since the US population is over 30x the size of the Belgian population, I find it quite normal that there are more American Nobel-prize winners. Also: US economy is better (= more money for scientific research, funding by corporations, ...)


In my (low-quality) high school education, we had a course called "Reading through the Press". It was a critical reading course that ask us to read articles and try to find out what the writer wanted to tell versus what the actual events that were being written about.

_YOU_ got that course. Did every single American get that same course?

One last thing: please take into consideration that English is not my native language (Dutch is), and that expressing complex things in English is sometimes difficult for me. (This is an explanation for some of the things I said that didn't come across the way I intended them to do (in past posts), not an excuse.) I'll try to do better in the future.

Congrats on the english. You're very good for a non-native speaker.

Originally posted by Admin
Alrighty!

So, for a change in topic here... what do you think of the middle easst. Is the coming of the Lord at hand... or is just another bunch of dark skins shooting off at the mouth?

Does Israel stand a chance... who is going to strike first... will the United States bomb Iraq in full force first, or will they wait until Saddam makes the first move... (in a major way that is).

It sure is interesting times...

I think the middle east isn't much different today than what I've read in the old testament (sp?). I mean, read about Moseus going arround taking over teratory based on it being inherated to the isrealites. They usually killed every last person wherever they took over. On rare occasions, they would enslave the population of a town instead of killing them.
I think they did this because the Lord wanted to basically say "The Isrealites are mine, respect them or else...". So they were justified in killing so many. I mean, Isreal is a huge nation (today and when they were crossing the Jordon). And they were designed to change the world (which they have).

As far as Isreal today, I don't really know who to believe. I don't know who fights for the Lord. I don't think this is out of Revelations (although in maybe 300 years it would seam like a possability).

The US has stated that they will destroy any facility responsable for the destruction of American air craft, so I imagine that some bombing will come shortly.

I watch the BBC sometimes (curtacy of quicktime, of course), and every time I watch it, its middle ease this and middle east that. Its too confusing for me to follow, but I know some people understand it. I really just hope that the Truth will come out of this. I think that as time goes on, it will be evident where the Lord is working.

But for now, I'm utterly confused. I wish FoxNews would do a special on it to bring people like me up to date on whats happining over there, because I don't even understand (or know) the more-or-less immedate history of the area.

I find myself reading the news about what is happening in the middle east, then take a look at Revelations and other books, such as Daniel in the Old Test and see what exactly is relating to now. The thing is, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN it will all happen... WE KNOW WHAT will happen, and we are suppose to recognize the SIGNS. I don't feel like an idiot saying... I SEE THE SIGNS!

Everything centers around the temple mount. The Bible talks about at ime when the temple mount is split in half, one side given to the gentiles, the other side given to the Jews. Only after this happens, are the Jews able to rebuild the temple and start sacrifices again.

What will it take for this to happen? A war? the UN delegating who gets what? Some world peace treaty?

Is the rapture of the church, pre-trib, mid-trib or pre-wrath. All fun discussions to have. Imagine all Christians in the world, GONE in a mater of seconds... our President and Vice President gone. Other leaders around the world, gone... mass confusion all over the globe... hmm... could that cause the countries of the world to sign a 7 year peace treaty... a way of saying.. "Things are messed up right now, lets call for world peace while we regroup and reorganize our countries through this chaos."

Just an idea, never know...

small humorous commentary:





Everything centers around the temple mount. The Bible talks about at ime when the
temple mount is split in half, one side given to the gentiles, the other side given
to the Jews.



does gentiles follow the french meaning of gentle or noble ?? in that case teh jews are not noble ?? he he he (although I am sure that moses did not know french...and french did not exist then lolat least the way we know it :p)


Admiral

second commentary, serious:

Personally I do not believe in predestination, or the fact that a "fate" exists. Since this is my belief I do not believe that someone can foretell the future because the future changes with each and every one of our actions.

Furthermore if someone tries to "predict" the immediate future he can do so on an education guess. He can take a look at conditions now in whatever he is trying to predict and make an educated guess of where the stockmarket or whatever else is going to be in 2-3-5-8-12 months, but even then it's uncertain and lots of variables change so a prediction about, lets say the stock market today, may not be valied in an hour, a week, a month or a quarter.

Now taking that into account imagine how old the old testament is. If we suppose we take the same methods of prediction imagine how flaud it is. But lets say they had divine insight. How do we know? What can be the proof positive way to show that things have occured or will occur ?


Admiral

PS: comical again--> lets call Ms Cleo :p

I don't think this war has much to do with the Bible. There are lots of conflicts between different peoples. Conflicts have to do with cultural differences, misunderstandings, ignorance, economics... not with God.

(BTW: If God exists, I don't think he favors one people over the other peoples)

Religion was a subject on my school (a Roman Catholic College), and the priests explained how the bible is not meant to be interpreted literally - I agree with them.

the fact of the matter, saddly, is that people use such scriptures to justify their actions. Leaders cant just say "well I want more land today so I will start a war", they need some sort of "superior" motive-intervention or cause, and this is where religion comes in.

Admiral

Originally posted by AdmiralAK
second commentary, serious:

Personally I do not believe in predestination, or the fact that a "fate" exists. Since this is my belief I do not believe that someone can foretell the future because the future changes with each and every one of our actions.


Well I don't happen to think that anyone can predict the future either. The bible even says something about that, its in the new testament, but I can't remember where (maybe in Mathew or something). But as far as predestination goes, how would you ever know? I mean, I'm typing this message. So did I have a choice? I believe I had a choice, but the Lord simply knows what choice I will make. Is that predestination or not? I don't really know.




Furthermore if someone tries to "predict" the immediate future he can do so on an education guess. He can take a look at conditions now in whatever he is trying to predict and make an educated guess of where the stockmarket or whatever else is going to be in 2-3-5-8-12 months, but even then it's uncertain and lots of variables change so a prediction about, lets say the stock market today, may not be valied in an hour, a week, a month or a quarter.

Now taking that into account imagine how old the old testament is. If we suppose we take the same methods of prediction imagine how flaud it is. But lets say they had divine insight. How do we know? What can be the proof positive way to show that things have occured or will occur ?


I for one do take the Bible literally. Everything in it is fact. Usually written by someone watching the events occur. I think of it as a history lesson, too. Now when I read in the old testament "If a man is unholy he must sacrafice two doves" or something, I know that changed when Jesus became the Ultimate sacrafice. And I've even read that men are not supposed to shave. Well, I'm really in for it now ;-). But seriously, I wouldn't believe that we are all sinners because we shave.
I think you have to do some interperating. True, the old testament is like 5000 years old or something, but the lessons, (and I guess this is what you were saying by litteral) are the same. By not shaving their faces, the Isrealites were easly noticable. They stood out (by covering their heads, too). So maybe today that means don't hide it. Where a cross or something.

Sometimes it is hard to tell, though.

And AK, I'm not disagreeing with you, I merely read your post and thought of a thousand things to say on the topic and used your post as an outline.

Not to be mean or anything, but the boards at macosx.com beat the pants off typical linux boards. Seriously, Admin, you got a great group of minds here and its great that you open the boards up like this.

Originally posted by kilowatt
I for one do take the Bible literally. (...) I think you have to do some interperating.

The moment you start interpreting, you no longer take the bible literally...

I believe the Bible was written by "normal" people, but with devine inspiration. Not by God himself. Therefore I cannot consider the Bible to contain absolute truth. I believe the Bible is a book written by privileged witnesses of God's actions (with all different degrees of "privileged", more and less privileged witnesses). What those people wrote about their experiences is colored by the era they lived in, their cultural background, ... Their experiences can help us to understand the mystery of God better, help us _find_ answers, but don't _provide_ (complete) answers...

I think some sort of proof is that there are contradicting passages in the Bible. If you take the Bible literally, you have a problem. If you don't, you can search for the deeper meaning of those contradicting passages that most likely communicate the same values after all...

I hope you understand what I'm saying... this is a difficult/complicated subject, and I'm not an exegete.

Yeah, I did trip that last post up a bit ;-)

What I meant to say, was that I except the Bible as fact. And I concider all within it as *literally* occuring. But I think when you read it, you have to take into account how the world is today. Just try to make parallels with some of the stories in it.

As for who wrote the Bible, I think we are in agreement that it was people influenced by God who wrote it. They probably were told to write some of it, and lots of it is just accounts of history. Like Mathew, Mark, Luke, etc, its just them writing what happened.

BTW, read some Revolation last night.... don't know quite what to think, but it is very interesting. I've been reading all old testament (trying to understand the roots of Christianity). But I may be reading that concurrently now. Its really interesting. I know some people think that dude (John, I think) was on acid or something, and while its possable, it doesn't sound like it because it does coinside with other scripture.... any thoughts?

I am going to state this right now, this is my opinion, if this comes across as putting down anyone's beliefs I apologize ahead of thime. That said...

What I see in the middle east is a set of two fanatic groups that are fighting over "God"(or equivalent). They have many religious differences that are all based on what some men decided to teach a long time ago when to explain natural occourences they needed a scapegoat or savior, so they created "God" and "Satan". If everyone looked on a broader range of the world today, they would see that probably the most important thing most world religions teach is love and respect for your fellow man, then why are none of them "practicing what they preach"!!!!!!!

I think it was wrong for the Isreali State to have ever been created, but we cannot change that, so they need to get out of the way and give the palestinians a share of the land. At the same time either side to be brainwashing their youth to go kill their fellow man (whether it is suicide bombing or mandatory enlistment in the military) is wrong! Murder in the name of your god is still murder!

We live in a world where children gun each other down in schools, a moron can be elected as leader of the freeworld, we bomb countries because they have things we want (oil) and intimidated other to our ends, and yet we are a "christian" nation, well people, I think we need to lead by example, we need to respect eachother on an individual basis and on a global scale, otherwise we are no better than a beast. As far as revelations go, I would have to believe in god to follow revelations (although as a former christian I know the book well) so I think when you prophosize (sp?) you sometime create them to be self fulfilling.

Whether you are buhdist, christian, jewish, muslim, agnostic, athiest or alien we need to start treating eachother as people and embrace the differences, you can learn much by listening instead of fighting.

Again I apologize for anyone I offended, but this is just what the American media has fixated on, there is the same thing going on all over the world that needs to stop. I also apologize for my horrible spelling:)

Originally posted by Soapvox
the most important thing most world religions teach is love and respect for your fellow man, then why are none of them "practicing what they preach"!!!!!!!

People in power use whatever is available to make their position stronger. If those in power use religion, they have an added advantage: they can (ab)use religion as a means to keep the people ignorant, stupid, calm.

There are lots of examples: American and European politicians who "promote christian values", Taliban in Afghanistan, CIA-sponsored sects in South-America and Africa,...

Good news: I read in the newspaper today that 70 percent of Israeli's no longer believe that Sharon is the one who will solve their problems. Peres' is gaining importance... (I don't like him too much either, but at least he's less dangerous than Sharon, and he's willing to talk to the palestinians about removing the "Israeli Defense Force" from Palestinian territory currently under Israeli control).

Yooo! Racer X...

You spoke a lot!

Relax...untangle the knots...soften the glare...

One way of learning is to ask others why they think as they do...

No need to use force, more even coming from the windmill of the mind.

For some a dream, for others a nightmare...

"Detach yourself and you will see", it's a pity no university has such a course.

Many greetings to you...

On the middle east:
Palestine certainly has a valid gripe. If we put aside all prejudices and contexts (please take this objectively), it boils down to the fact that there is a large Jewish population in the USA, and although the American Jews still have little representation in government, the USA was the heavy hand enforcing Zionism. To prove the point, one must only look at the military arsenal of the Israeli force to see that they are backed by the USA (whether by donation or sale). As an outsider, I can't help but feel that the USA seems bound by a segment of its population to side with the Israeli, no matter the skirmish.

In general:
The reason this thread can get so hot boils down to our own pride. The US nationals are informed of events in tis region by the US media, and they base their opinions on those facts. The European (forgive me for generalizing) contingent base their argument on the spin that the the Euro media puts on the story. I base my opinions on what the Canadian media, always out to pretend to be separate, states in their stories.

We're all reading from different scripts, yet trying to argue the same point.

Very valid point scott:)

Hey...where is RacerX ? ...he's been very silent for the past past :eek:

Admiral

scott: that was an intelligent post.

About the media:
I suppose we are all influenced by the media in our countries... but IMO it is often safer to rely on the European press (maybe Canadian too, I don't know) than on the American press. Especially in this case (Palestine / Israel) since the US are involved in it...

If anyone wants to know what media influence(d) me: my newspaper of choice is "De Morgen", one of the two high-quality newspapers in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium -- it is an independent (no political ties, unlike other Belgian newspapers) publication, a bit leftist.

I also read "De Standaard" (www.standaard.be), the other high-quality newspaper: it is a Roman Catholic newspaper (very good content, sometimes criticizes the Church).

Magazine: Maomagazine (www.maomagazine.be), investigative journalism.

TV-news & background information: I rely on Canvas (www.canvas.be) for the TV-news (public broadcasting corporation, journalists are independent from the government, news is less sensational than on commercial stations). I also watch lots of documentaries and reports on Canvas, BBC2, BBC World and "Nederland 2" (Dutch public broadcasting corporation).

I only rely on the Internet for IT-related news. Only exception: I get the headlines of the NY Times delivered by e-mail every day, and if I have time I read some of their articles.

No I am sorry, but I have to shove my opinion in here.

What the heck is it with europeans and american media???

Perfect example:
I was vacationing in greece a few summers back and had my opinions on certain issues and was ready and able to back them up with good and most importantly *valid* examples.

Whenever they agreed with me they nodded and said "yep yep you're right" Whenever they did not agree and had no reason or *valid* example to back up their point they just gave me the "no matter who your ancestors were, you were born in the US, you are a stupid ignorant american brainwashed by the US media"

I mean give me a f*cken break! This is ouble faceness (is that even a word ? :p) at its worst!

Yellow Press exists EVERYWHERE, not just in the usa, and I suggest that everyone who is a free thinking person look into the news with a grain of salt because no matter what the paper or the reporter, you view the news from the reporter's point of view and any prejudices he/she has come out on paper whether he wants it or not.

Furthermore just like you pick and choose your scholarly authors when you go to barnes & noble to get a book to read, the same way you should pick your papers and how you get your news.

There is a greek aesopian fable.
There was once a fox, a very hungry. It comes up to a grapevine and sees some juice grapes hanging from it. It says to itself, what the hell, I am hungry enough. I will try to get them. So she jumped and jumped as high as she could but no matter how high she jumped she could not reach them. In the end she gave up and said to herself "to hell with them, they are sour anyway and not worth my trouble".

I feel that this is the attitude all europeans have to ALL things american, this superiority syndrome...it sickens me to see people who can otherwise say "hey I dont have a valid example, I will get back to you" blame it all on media bias and american ignorance. As a greek-american I take GREAT insult to that :mad:


Admiral

Before I say anything else: please note that I am aware of the fact that the European media are going in the exact same direction as the US media... therefore in a few years I'll have to say the exact same thing about the US and the European media...

But _for_now_:

In general, I believe the US media are less independent from government & corporations.

My main problem is with the "invisible" ties that exist between different media, different media all promoting the same cause. Example: Fox News Channel, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal editorial page, conservative talk-shows like Rush Limbaugh's, different organizations and think tanks and advocacy groups, all working together to promote conservative ideas... (without Joe Sixpack knowing that all those organizations and corporations are connected to each other)

Media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and corporations like AOL TimeWarner have too much power, too much control over what is said in the media. It is an illusion to think that people who watch out what they read are not influenced by the existence of these structures...

What about uncritical people?

Think about the "election" of a new US president last year... from where I was looking, that didn't look like a nation of well-informed people electing the most capable leader for the next 4 years...

--

I do not think that everything American is _bad_ by definition. Nor do I think everything European is good. But I have serious doubts about American media.

(AdmiralAK: I'm sorry for the GREAT insult. I didn't mean to insult anyone.)

Yooo...Admiral!...

You did shove...

"I feel that this is the attitude all europeans have to ALL things american, this superiority syndrome..."
"As a greek-american I take GREAT insult to that..."

...all europeans...Wow!

...ALL things american...Wow!

Must be painful...I can understand ...

...greek-american...

You mean Greek, as the european country Greece, right?

You mean american as the USA, right?

Sorry there's no more there to help you out...

Many greetings to you...

I don't know where sao is coming from, so no comment on that.

secondly, the insult is general so dont worry about it GrandHighOne.

Thirdly (and last) the problem that plagues the USA is voter apathy. People dont feel compeled to go out and vote. People take their democratic rights for granted. I know, at least in greece, voting is compulsory in european countries so people do not have the luxury to be apolitical and apathetic. There are some, and those cast blank ballots, but the rest have to know a thing or two, and they vote for the people that best suit them (also there are more political parties over there, here republicans and democrats have intermingled so much its like teh RISC and CISC debate).

If voting was compulsory I believe more parties would be created to represent the masses that go unrepresented because they do not vote. That is my belief.

As for voting for the most capable person...first off this goes towards voter apathy, and second it goes towards ideology. Bush and Gore and the other candidates stand for some ideology. If the frontman for that ideology is flawed (i.e. Bush) you vote for the ideology he stands for and not the person, which is what I believe the masses did. For me these were my first elections. None of the candidates appealed to me personality-wise. Ideologically I am a bit more conservative than liberal, so I went with Bush. When you vote for someone it's not always an informed decision, it also has to do with your gut instinct.


Admiral

Interesting thread here on the situation in the middle east...here's an link for all of you to ponder over.

http://www.senate.gov/~inhofe/fl030402.html

If you read this all the way through please share your thoughts on it.

Originally posted by testuser
Oh, please! This confirms my belief that most of our (USA) elected representatives are not intelligent people. Either that or he has been lobbied quite heavily by Jewish interest groups. His arguments are as lop-sided as they get.

That's cool that you don't agree with it, but please give me some specifics. In what ways were his arguments lopsided? What didn't you agree with?

I'm curious to hear more than just blanket statements of US stupididty.

Politicians are not dumb, they are keneving fiends that only seek to further their own political careers. Public service these days is a career and not a selfless task you undertake on your free time, as it was in our forefather's days.

First of all, no one is entitled to land, no one. This is not a socialistic world where everyone gets a fair-share. Land is aquired through agreements, alliances and even war.

The allies won WWII and gave away part of their claims to the making of Israel. Was this right? In a "fair" way, no it wasnt, people were already there, but it was their land that they received by being the victor of a war and they could do what they wanted with it.

The fact that israelites lived there many many years ago has nothing to do with anything. If that were the case southern italy and sicily would be under greek control, and so would the norhtern part of cyprus which is "occupied" by a turkish government.

If you lose something in an armed conflict you are not entitled to get it back just like that, its like gambling, you lose something in a game of craps, the only way to get it back would be to play more and try to win it.

I am on the side of the israelis on this, NOT because "they have the right" to be there, but because they got some land fair and square through some means (war) and they are attempting to have some sort of peaceful resolution, but you have certain idiots that go and blow themselves up. It seems that more people are getting fanatical, and are endangering peacetalks that have a chance fo being successful!



Admiral

I can see where you are coming from Admiral, but I can't say that I totally agree with you. When a people settles a land that was considered worthless, develops it, and turns it into something good...and only THEN do a people try to get back in I think it's bunk what the palestinians are arguing. That land lay barren for YEARS with no one wanting it...it is out of pure hatred that now the battle rages. The Israelis deserve that land, and have fought and died to protect it, just like any other country should.

What else did Israel have left to do to have a peace? They offered everything that the Palestinians wanted and even was willing to split Jerusalem...the holiest of places to them. It was spit back in their face and now bombers come into SYNAGOGES and blow themselves up during the holiest of holidays. Imagine the international outrage if a mosque was attacked during services or a muslim holiday...I shudder to even think.

....funny he uses received instead of taken

We can argue the semantics of any piece of writing on a subject like this, fact is that every piece is written through the eyes of the person writing it, and as long as the facts are correct each side is entitled to write it how they can best express it


rightfully? certainly open to debate
the fact stands that as long as Israel occupies land it will not have peace. Even the UN has recognized that land for peace is the just solution.

Blatant lies.

What is a lie about it? Israel DID offer land, the Palestinians rejected it and continue their suicide attacks. Peace agreements were made with President Clinton and those were broken...their flag has a picture of Palestine engulfing the whole of Israel with no Israeli state in existence...palestinians are taught that Israel must be destroyed and that by blowing yourself up and killing some of them you have a great place in heaven. Where have you seen that they believe Israel has a right to exist as a state?


So if I have an opinion that differs from his I am wrong?OK, let's give all the land owned by the USA back to the native American Indians.

Here I do agree with your thoughts somewhat. However, the American Indians were not organized under a recognized central body, they were collections of tribes and didn't have any set boundries or territories...I don't know how this would even be brought about considering that Also, American Indians are now citizens of the United States and coexist peacefully in a land where they have full freedoms and aren't persecuted or murdered.


Look, his garbage goes on and on. I would rather discuss a more intelligently written piece on the subject, instead of picking apart propaganda.

Please show me the intelligent pieces you are talking about...I'm interested in reading as much as I can on the subject. If this is "garbage" I wanna read the "real deal".


If you don't believe that Palestinians have a right to a homeland as much as the Israelis, then there is no point in discussing this. As long as the Israelis keep displacing Palestinians from their land, keep manufacturing weapons of mass destruction with no supervision (nuclear bombs), defy all international laws by assassinating political opponents, run a racist government that parallels apartheid South Africa, etc., etc. they will not have my moral support.

I do believe that the Palestinians have a right to a homeland...one that they have already been offered and they rejected. Please show me where you got this information about weapons of mass distruction, the government assinations of political enemies, racist govt, etc. This is the first I've heard of that and I'd like to read about it.

I will be reading what you've linked to here...gimmie some time to process it all and formulate a reply :)

by testuser
...funny he uses received instead of taken.

Funny that you seem to have missed the fact that they won that area after a number of Arab states tried to invade and destroy Israel. Israel didn't start that war, but they did win it.


Blatant lies.

Not true, many (including Arafat at different times) believe that Israel has no rights in the region. I think this has more to do with you being ill informed.


If you don't believe that Palestinians have a right to a homeland as much as the Israelis, then there is no point in discussing this. As long as the Israelis keep displacing Palestinians from their land, keep manufacturing weapons of mass destruction with no supervision (nuclear bombs), defy all international laws by assassinating political opponents, run a racist government that parallels apartheid South Africa, etc., etc. they will not have my moral support.

First, the Palestinians do have a right to a homeland, it is just that a majority of what used to be the Palestinians homeland is now Jordan. Isn't it funny that you never see the Palestinians bombing Jordanian civilians to get back a large area of what used to be their homeland? Do some research, this has less to do with a Palestinians homeland and more with a general hatred of Israel. As for Israel being a nuclear power, why is this news to you? Are you saying you didn't know about this? And considering how small Israel is, do you think they would use it on the Palestinians? And what political opponents has the government ever assassinated? And as for the racist government, they took in the refugees from the neighboring Arab states right after the 1967 war, and made homes for them (something which none of the Arab states would do). To most people in Israel, they have held out their hand to have it bitten to many times at this point. Considering that, I think I could over look their feeling of mistrust without labeling them racist.


In fact, it appears that the only country in the UN that steadfastly supports Israel, even when it commits atrocities in the name of national security, is the USA.

What atrocities do you speak of? Name a real atrocity committed by Israel.


If you want to find a balanced piece of writing to discuss, this will be fine, but I refuse to debate the merits of Israeli propaganda.

The only way you could tell that something is propaganda is by being informed, which you appear not to be.


Israel does have a nuclear weapons program. This is a well known fact. Here is just one of many links on this topic:

Again, have you been living under a rock, why does this seem like such a surprise to you?


As far as my sources of information: I read the Washington Post, New York Times... (and on and on)

What is sad is that you seem to be missing a few facts even though I know that many of your sources have made them very clear. You seem to have made up your mind and then started reading (interesting idea, but it appears to have left you lacking on the subject).


Look the Palestinians are not angels, but the Israelis do not have the moral high ground either. You cannot attribute the criminal actions of some Palestinians to all of them, just as you cannot attribute the criminal actions of some Israelis to all of them. There are good Jews and Muslims who do want peace, and who do have a vision of co-existence. It is depressing to see that extremists (on both sides) have started a blood feud, and have stolen the voice and support from moderates.

Actually, Israelis do have the moral high ground. They had a plan for a Palestinian state that would be both self governing and have the support of Israel, and Arafat walked away from it. I have never agreed with the settlements and thought that it was a bad idea, but I also know that the refugee camps when they were part of Egyptian and Jordanian territory were much worse than after they became part of Israel (because before losing these territories, the Arabs could care less about what was happening to the Palestinians).

by testuser
Please read the posts before you mistakenly criticize me. I was not at all surprised that Israel has a nuclear arsenal; it was Izzy who was unaware of this. He asked me for my sources of information, and I provided one well written link.

I did read your post (a number of times) before posting, and I actually write my responses into a copy of your original posts so that I don't miss anything. Given that, your statement about Israel being a nuclear power was pointless unless you thought it was going to be new information (as if it had been a secret or something).


I find your Rush Limbaugh style of pulling a few of my words and then criticizing me to be comical.

Quite cutting, but also a poor excuse for a rebuttal. Lets read on to see if you can do any better (though I really don't hold out any hope :D).


You and I agree that the word should be "taken" and not "received"... I was just pointing out that I could tell Inhofe's prejudice from the moment he used that word.

Yes, we agree on the definition, but the statement you were making made it sound like Israel started the war to take the land, when they actually pushed the invaders back past the areas which they had been using to stage their assault.


Well, I will give you one of many such examples: General Sharon ordering his troops to bury Palestinian militants alive in the refugee camps using bulldozers during the first Intifada of the late '80s. Go back and read my last post if you you want more examples.

We can all rewrite history to make any one sound bad. Your reference here and other references are quite distorted, but then again, you seem unaware of the history of the region anyway so I am not surprised.


But I must ask you why you want to deny that both sides have blood on their hands?

I deny that Israel has started any of these actions (with the exception of the settlements which was noted in my first post). I want to know why the Palestinians do not feel the need to fight for their home land in Jordan (something which you seem to have missed completely in your response), where a majority of it actually is? Why have you not addressed that? Fighting in a war is bad enough, but when you have terrorist who target women and children and then hide behind women and children, that is where I can draw distinct lines between Israelis and Palestinian.


Well, the Palestinian Authority ratified its charter to specifically state that it acknowledges that the state of Israel has a right to exist. Therefore Inhoe's statement to the contrary is a lie!

We have a treaty with Russia on the use of missile defense, Bush is pushing to start a program that goes against that treaty. When someone says that the US is for missile defense are you going to point to that treaty and say it is a lie? The Palestinian Authority also said that they would not use terrorism, I guess all these reports of terrorist bombings must also be lies, right testuser?


It seems like you are less informed than I about recent events! Either that or you are a Zionist who hates to see anything negative about Israel in print.

No one could possibly be less informed then you are, testuser. But if you want my position on this I supported 100% the Palestinians right to a free and self governing state (just like I said in my first post, who must not be reading post completely before they respond now, testy?). I support the Camp David proposal that Clinton put forward and Arafat walked away from. I think that any gains achieved via terroristic acts is just going to encourage more terrorism, and thus Israel (or the US or any other country) should respond to terrorism with the strongest possible force. When the terrorism has finally stopped completely, I would love to see us go back to where we were two years ago. Currently, the bombers are heroes to Palestinians. That means that they believe that the bombing of women and children is justified. Israel has targeted terrorist or terrorist organizations in most of there attacks, but when almost anyone in the occupied territories could be a terrorist, it becomes very hard to act without the possibility of hurting innocent people.


I am neither an Israeli, nor Palestinian, nor Jew, nor Muslim. I see distrust and suspicion from both groups:

Nor are you informed or able to read other people's post completely. Why do you feel the need to point this out? Oh, that's right, you were trying to make it sound like I was siding only with the Israelis. I would side with any group who after trying to give a group of people something that no other states in that region have (though they should have), have had civilians killed for no good reason.


Israeli suspicion that good-will will be interpreted as weakness, and will trigger an attack by the Arabs.
Conversely, Palestinians suspicion that they will forever be denied a legitimate state, and that they will forever live under Jewish oppression.

Again, the Palestinians were more oppressed by the Egyptians and Jordanians than they were by the Israelis, and the Jordanians really are the ones who should have been providing a Palestinian state (find a map of what used to be Palestine).


I foresee a solution that involves negotiation of a Palestinian state, good-will between the leadership of both sides, and cooperation between the two states...

Does this mean that terrorist attacks will cease in my vision of future compromise?
Immediately - no. Eventually - yes. The point is that both sides will be working together to break apart terrorist organizations, and punish those who are accountable for such acts against humanity. All Palestinians are not terrorists, just as all Israelis are not brutal colonialists.

Interesting, I don't think all Palestinians are terrorists, I do think that many of them consider the bomber to be heroes... which is a form of support... which means they are not ready to talk.


But this is not just about terrorism. It is about developing trade, tourism, and friendly bi-lateral relations between the two states. With an end to Palestinian-Israeli animosity, it will be much easier to normalize relations with other Arab nations, and end decades of regional strife and instability.

You missed the 90's, didn't you? They were there... it was about to happen. Why don't you try telling us how this all started up again. I would be interested in hearing what you think caused all of this.


You may argue for a different route (the one currently under way). Military suppression of the Palestinian people.

I argue for not giving anything to reward terrorism. Anywhere... anytime! This has less to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and more with the general use of terrorism anywhere in the world. If it works in Israel, then we are going to see it being used more everywhere else. If breaking the Palestinians is the only way to get them to stop using terrorism and getting them back to the point where they have their own state, then that is how it should be. This didn't need to happen, they had Israel agreeing to the Palestinian state. If they stopped using terrorism, the world community would be able to push Israel back to the point were Clinton had them.


But this is not a long term solution; it just creates an environment for future strife and bloodshed. And who wants to risk this in a future where a terrorist might carry nuclear weapons in a briefcase?

Your solution would have us all at risk for terrorism because you would show that it works. When something works, others are going to use it.

And testy, try asking harder questions. I am really disappointed that you didn't even address some of the more interesting points of my first post. :D

// donning flame retardant grear

and what would happen if fossil fuels were no longer necessary? no one would give two mouse clicks about the situation there.

// pulling out the heavy-duty flame thrower (just kidding :p )


I would. The Palestinians should not have been miss treated by the Jordanians to begin with (forcing them into the refugee camps long before Israel was in control of those areas). Arabs don't even like each other, and the only thing they seem to have in comon is a deep hatred for Israel (which got the land it originally had the same way most of the countries in that area did, from the British and French who were in control of that area).

Here is a nice map of the Palestinian's homeland... can you pick out were Israel is on that map?

Getting back to the original question asked by the Admin, I think the middle east situation is going to get much worse before it gets better. There is too much hatred and bias taught to the younger generation. Humans have such a short attention span and memory and they always justify their reasoning with "this is a different situation than before which warrents violence". I think that given the recent events in Israel and Palestine that it is destined for an all out war. Yasser Arafat really isn't in control of the Palestinians, he's more a less a figure head now. Whatever leadership cabinet/group was set up over there is making teh decisions and carrying out actions. I predeict he terrorist attacks (suicide bombings) will get worse, Israel will respond with very severe counter attacks on Palestine leadership, killing Arafat. Some neighboring arab nations will come to the defense of the Palestinians, which when combined will inflict serious damamge on Israel. The U.S., already over there in the region, will respond to help Israel. I'm assuming that somehow Iraq will be one of teh attacking forces on Israel which will be justification enough for the U.S. to starting lobbing bombs at Iraq. The Rusians, who are still friendly with the Iraqis will reluctantly get involved. None of this could happen, all of it could happen, or perhaps something similar. THE ENTIRE REGION IS UNSTABLE - THE BREAK UP OF THE SOVIET UNION, THE SOVIENT STATES BREAKING RANKS WITH RUSSIA, THE TALIBAN, AL QAEDA, OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS, ETC... ETC... ETC... A war will likely happen that will create enough pain and bloodshed that might suggest to people "Is all this bickering really worth dying for?"

the last post by testy
Re: Jordanian vs Israeli Palestinian populations:
Could it be that the Jordanians have done a better job of integrating the Palestinian refugee population than Israel? Obviously Palestinians are more happy in Jordan, otherwise there would be more strife there.

Yeah, I can see were Jordan moving them to the refugee camps which are now part of Israel was great integration. And the Jordanians are sooo happy with the Palestinians being there, that exporting them to Israel must just be their way of sharing the joy.


* You asked me for an example of an Israeli atrocity. I provided one. You now accuse me of trying to distort history.

I never accused you of distortion. You need a grasp of the facts in order to distort them. I only point out that you are ill informed and naive (and a ton of fun to play with).


* You have stated that I am not "informed" at least half a dozen times in your two posts... I can only surmise that you would also accuse the "Peace Now" activists who live in Israel to be less informed than you.

And almost as many times as I have pointed out the obvious short comings of your grasp of the facts of this situation, I have also said that I support the Palestinians. I believe that the Israelis who believe they can reach peace with people who hate them by other means can have their opinions. But as I said (and again, something else which you did not address, this has more to do with terrorism and less with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). I would like a peaceful solution that does not reward terrorism. We held other states that produced actual atrocities (not acts of defense, but actual atrocities... there is a deference) accountable for them, and the Palestinians (a majority of whom support the bombing campaign) should be held accountable (just like not every German supported the acts of Germany in WW I & II, the fact that not every Palestinians supports terrorism makes little difference here).


* Inhofe's statement that Arafat does not recognize the right of Israel to exist is a lie. Please don't convolute the argument by attacking me for being "uninformed" or by comparing it to the completely unrelated topic of missile defense and the 1974 ABM Treaty.

* Palestinians are not all terrorists.
I don't know how many times I need to stress this. The Palestinian Authority is not a terrorist organization. Groups like Hezbollah and Hammas are. After the Oslo agreements the Palestinian Authority's security service worked hand in hand with the Israeli security services to capture suspected terrorists.

So what you are saying is that the Palestinian Authority did not release many of the people who are now organizing the bombings within the last 18 months? It has been quite clear the Palestinian Authority has been at odds with the Oslo agreements almost from the start of this latest round of violence. It was only after sustained military pressure was applied that the Palestinian Authority started to take some of these people back into custody. That is exactly what I mean by saying you're ill informed, you point to the Oslo agreements and say that the Palestinian Authority (which has provided support and condoned many of the bombings) could not possibly be involved. You say the charter recognizes Israel's rights, but a majority of the people active in the Palestinian Authority do not.

Lets try a test, you said: "Last response to RacerX", it has been written, are you going to live up to that?


There needs to be a political process toward Palestinian statehood and more cooperation in this regard in the future...

Again, this is a another perfect example of your lack of information on the subject. There was, it was there, and Arafat walked away from it. Again, how do you think all this was started? If you don't know, then you can't possibly speak intelligibly about how to bring it to an end (as I have pointed out almost a dozen times now :D ).


And one last point, you claim that every time Israel extends its hand in good-will, it gets bitten. I suppose you include the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan in this assessment?

Boy, you really are weak at debate... lol. I said to many times and you quote me as saying every time. You are even poor at reading posts that are right in front of you. You read into them what you want to see, and exclude other parts. This is not unexpected, but disappointing.


Go ahead, call me ignorant another six times to make it an even dozen. You are supporting a racist system, while making personal attacks against someone who points out that the current situation is morally unjust because of actions taken by both sides.

I think I have gotten to the dozen mark by now (thanks to your help). This is not a personal attack, this is a fact... you need to read more carefully what you are reading. That has to do with articles and posts. You seem to only get out what you are looking for and dismiss the rest. Sadly, you are more guilty of a Rush Limbaugh style of debate than I am. You continually ignore points and misquote me to try to support your arguments, you have this Limbaugh thing down pat.

I promise to pick apart any of your future posts on this subject. I would hope that you would address issues and not misquote me in the future. As I said before, lets see if you can do better (though I really don't hold out any hope :D ).

Funny, I thought Kissinger pointed out the flaws of Brzezinski's assessment quite well.